boot it down to warlord ... CivIV have a notoriously steep learning curve, even for oldtimers ... i've played civ, civII, SMAC, SMAX and civIII before getting CivIV and was still stuck for the better part of a year before i won pseudoregularily on Noble
CIV IV: a step backwards...
- Thread starter CIV-RAZOR
- Start date
I never use corporations. I can't be bothered making them. Usually I am in state property, where corps have no effect. Religions are OK since you don't have to actively spread your religion. you can just convert to someone else's relgion for diplo benefits. You can also go to war to take someone else's shrine.
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
Civ 4 > All the other Civ games.
I never played 3... so I'm not sure about it. I think the corruption and the whack-a-mole pollution is made 3 a bad civ game.
No thanks, I rather have a more improved Civ 4 game.
I never played 3... so I'm not sure about it. I think the corruption and the whack-a-mole pollution is made 3 a bad civ game.
No thanks, I rather have a more improved Civ 4 game.
That has nothing to do with Corporations, it's a random event quest.
volbound1700
Emperor
Civ IV is a vast improvement over Civ III, IMO. However, Civ II, IMO had the best scenarios, modding, etc. Fantastic Worlds was awesome.
I remember some of the scenarios:
Midgard
Crusades
Mongols
WW1
Napoleon
Mars
Moo2
These were amazing and keep me coming back for more and more. The Events Editor, Tribes Editor, Units Editor, Tech, etc. were all easy to edit and user-friendly. As a 12-year old I could figure them out easily.
I wish I could see scenarios pumped out like the Civ II ones (Historic and fun) and have an editor or modding style that was more user friendly like Civ II. Now the big improvements since Civ II are more Civs, Borders, Resources, etc. (Multiplayer did make Civ II gold). However, IMO, Civ II for its time was the best in the series. Although I prefer Civ IV over Civ II now, Civ IV never caught me the way Civ II did.
I remember some of the scenarios:
Midgard
Crusades
Mongols
WW1
Napoleon
Mars
Moo2
These were amazing and keep me coming back for more and more. The Events Editor, Tribes Editor, Units Editor, Tech, etc. were all easy to edit and user-friendly. As a 12-year old I could figure them out easily.
I wish I could see scenarios pumped out like the Civ II ones (Historic and fun) and have an editor or modding style that was more user friendly like Civ II. Now the big improvements since Civ II are more Civs, Borders, Resources, etc. (Multiplayer did make Civ II gold). However, IMO, Civ II for its time was the best in the series. Although I prefer Civ IV over Civ II now, Civ IV never caught me the way Civ II did.
volbound1700
Emperor
Civ III to me was a major step-back from Civ II and there were some real problems that drove me nutts about Civ III
1. Rushed scenarios with little historical accuracy. Only Napoleon and Middle Ages seemed to be scenarios that took any time to create.
2. No way to preset diplomacy for scenarios you make. Only that team system. I didn't understand that at all.
3. Game crashes if just one minor file in your scenario is wrong. This drove me insane
4. Laggy. My Civ III was more laggy then Civ IV.
5. AI Civs never hardly went to War with each other. At least not until modern age. Even when I would put game on highest aggressiveness. They often went to war with player but never each other which hurt them since you never had large AI Empires to deal with.
6. Cannot rush Wonders. WTH
7. Although the resource edition was nice, I like Civ IV the way you can get Iron or Bronze to make spearmen. Civ III was just annoying having to find each little resource to build anything.
8. No compelling scenarios. It was fun to sometimes play the regular game, but I enjoyed the scenarios I made more then anything or using world maps. I typically prefer real life maps or scenarios over the random maps. That was part of the reason I really enjoyed Civ II. There was so much to offer outside of the random game. The expansions to Civ II were amazing and you could tell that there was a lot of work put into the Civ II expansions and there scenarios. It doesn't appear that way with the expansions for Civ III or Civ IV which really seem to just take on more options to the game and that is it. The best Civ IV scenarios so far have been user-made. (Rhye's and Fall is probably the best IMO).
1. Rushed scenarios with little historical accuracy. Only Napoleon and Middle Ages seemed to be scenarios that took any time to create.
2. No way to preset diplomacy for scenarios you make. Only that team system. I didn't understand that at all.
3. Game crashes if just one minor file in your scenario is wrong. This drove me insane
4. Laggy. My Civ III was more laggy then Civ IV.
5. AI Civs never hardly went to War with each other. At least not until modern age. Even when I would put game on highest aggressiveness. They often went to war with player but never each other which hurt them since you never had large AI Empires to deal with.
6. Cannot rush Wonders. WTH
7. Although the resource edition was nice, I like Civ IV the way you can get Iron or Bronze to make spearmen. Civ III was just annoying having to find each little resource to build anything.
8. No compelling scenarios. It was fun to sometimes play the regular game, but I enjoyed the scenarios I made more then anything or using world maps. I typically prefer real life maps or scenarios over the random maps. That was part of the reason I really enjoyed Civ II. There was so much to offer outside of the random game. The expansions to Civ II were amazing and you could tell that there was a lot of work put into the Civ II expansions and there scenarios. It doesn't appear that way with the expansions for Civ III or Civ IV which really seem to just take on more options to the game and that is it. The best Civ IV scenarios so far have been user-made. (Rhye's and Fall is probably the best IMO).
TheEnforcer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 90
Darn right i'm trying to spread my religion far and wide. great benefits to doing so. Both financial and relations wise...
Agreed. I've had games where I've had 3 religions and I made it a point to spread all of them as much as I can. Shrine income can be substantial if you have your religion in every city on the continent, and beyond. I'd have a few cities doing nothing but pump out Missionaries.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
That is definitely not my experience with Civ3. In fact, since the Civ3 AI is worse at defending itself, then on attacking, I often saw terrific AI-AI wars. The lack of them in Civ4 at first was a step back, but BTS with improved AI managed to correct that a bit.
Read the Civ3 succession games for proof.
Hellfire
Prince
I have to agree. What possibly happened in civ3 is that one civ would become so much more powerful over a neighbor than suddenly BOOM a huge battle would ensue where one was wiped out. Civ3 waited for this critical mass and it was pretty straight forward. Civ4's AI is more calculating and I see more give and take wars in BtS. Before BtS other civs seemed too quiet.
In BtS I've seem some somewhat unusual wars, where Washington and Caesar made swiss cheese out of Stalin's empire... they cherry picked his cities! Stalin was left with a chopped up empire half the size with his cities separated from each other. Currently, I'm on a continental game with 8 civs, 4 civs on my continent. By the time I sent my caravels around the world and found the second continent, only three civs remained and one of them was down to 3 cities. I'm thinking of conquering those 3 cities and testing out how colonies work
. I doubt Napoleon will appreciate his closest rival being suddenly so close with tanks and airports 
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
I think Civ IV is infinitely better than Civ III. The rush to settle a lot of cities; the crappy way other civs could sneak units across your land without a an agreement of passage; the way one could cheat by stationing a lot of troops near your rival's cities, deep inside their borders, and then declare war and capture those cities (a cheap trick, and very unrealistic to boot); and the insane corruption in distant cities - those were only some of the faults with Civ III. Still, one ting I miss is the ability to watch the other civs fighting. Sometimes that could be hilarious; I will never forget Gandhi's insane war elephant rush against Bismarck. Basically, he sent a myriad jumbos marching all the way from one tip of a huge horseshaped continent to the other, through the territories of four other civs (the last one being mine), before they met their enemy and declared war, and they kept kept coming. They encountered the Germans in the southern part of a biggish jungle area, and the surviving jumbos (and the few other units Gandhi had sent off) continued into the desert south of the jungle. At the other side of the desert, the Germans' first cities were situated.
The elephants in Civ III were cheap to produce, but that was about all that can be said for them. They stood no chance against Bismarck's pikemen and other warriors. The sound effects were particularly funny. The average fight during that campaign sounded like this: "TRUMPETING-fightfightfight-THUD", as the elephant died and keeled over. It took an average of 3 or 4 jumbos to bring down a pikeman. Some of the elephants survived the jungle, but none of them made it through the desert.
Granted, if one were to watch the fighting between other civs, that could slow up the time each turn takes quite drastically, but in a future version of Civ one could add it as an option that can be enabled or disabled at any point during the game. It might ameliorate the tedium that often is a feature in the late game of Civ IV. (On that point, I do agree with the critics of Civ IV.)
The elephants in Civ III were cheap to produce, but that was about all that can be said for them. They stood no chance against Bismarck's pikemen and other warriors. The sound effects were particularly funny. The average fight during that campaign sounded like this: "TRUMPETING-fightfightfight-THUD", as the elephant died and keeled over. It took an average of 3 or 4 jumbos to bring down a pikeman. Some of the elephants survived the jungle, but none of them made it through the desert.
Granted, if one were to watch the fighting between other civs, that could slow up the time each turn takes quite drastically, but in a future version of Civ one could add it as an option that can be enabled or disabled at any point during the game. It might ameliorate the tedium that often is a feature in the late game of Civ IV. (On that point, I do agree with the critics of Civ IV.)
i think the truth of the matter is that i played civIII for so long as it had the hotseat function and the fact that my uncles computer cant run civ IV meant that i was drawn to continue playing that version of civilization...
hence why i felt it was better, i suppose... but i must admit now ive given it some time im really starting to like it and since i took my laptop down to his house and discovered how the multiplayer teams work, we are playing IV more...
all i need now is for that uncle of mine to buy a computer that can run IV <LOL>
anyway i revoke my original statement about IV and its not as bad as i first said it was, im even starting to get use to these tasks and religions, etc
and the more i play IV the more alot of peoples comments on here make more and more sense, but i would like to say this...
ive been active on many forums, ive even been a forum moderator for atari games, and whenever i myself or someone else starts a thread on a website claiming that the very game to which is discussed on that site is rubbish. it would normal result in insults and anger towards the original poster.
however noone on this forum has made me feel like im being attacked for what i have said about IV in fact you people have done the exact opposite and made me play a game that i probably would not have bothered to give a fighting chance of this thread never exsisted, so which version of civilization do i prefer now ?
IM NOT SURE ANYMORE ;LMAO !!!
hence why i felt it was better, i suppose... but i must admit now ive given it some time im really starting to like it and since i took my laptop down to his house and discovered how the multiplayer teams work, we are playing IV more...
all i need now is for that uncle of mine to buy a computer that can run IV <LOL>
anyway i revoke my original statement about IV and its not as bad as i first said it was, im even starting to get use to these tasks and religions, etc
and the more i play IV the more alot of peoples comments on here make more and more sense, but i would like to say this...
ive been active on many forums, ive even been a forum moderator for atari games, and whenever i myself or someone else starts a thread on a website claiming that the very game to which is discussed on that site is rubbish. it would normal result in insults and anger towards the original poster.
however noone on this forum has made me feel like im being attacked for what i have said about IV in fact you people have done the exact opposite and made me play a game that i probably would not have bothered to give a fighting chance of this thread never exsisted, so which version of civilization do i prefer now ?
IM NOT SURE ANYMORE ;LMAO !!!
No need to yell and insult ya. Your comments clearly indicated that you didn't understand some of the key mechanics of the game yet. It can be frustrating when you just want to have some fun. You could always go play Civ3 and give up on 4, but you are now starting to realize that learning some of these Civ4 mechanics will probably pay off in fun soon.
katipunero
Prince
a happy ending yay!
Yeah, we could've yelled at you, but I don't think the admins would've liked that. Just kidding!
But really.
I think u would have to put a gun to my head and make me feel u gona really pull the triger to make me play anything below the BTS. But again I am looking for CIV5 with more cool stuff perhaps even from previous versions..
Does CivIV really have that steep a learning curve for a vet? All I needed to do to cream the AI in my first game on noble was to read Sulla's walkthrough to familiarize myself with the new mechanics. Perhaps it was all the SMAC games that helped me to get into IV ?
r_rolo1
King of myself
Most likely. The core concepts are pretty much the same.
Similar threads
- Locked
